Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Vacuum: Update FSM more frequently

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The final FSM vacuum pass isn't partial, to finally correct all those
>>>> small inconsistencies.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the purpose of this patch is to prevent table bloating from
>>> concurrent modifications?
>>
>> Yes, by *marking* unmarked space. If the slot is above the threshold,
>> it means there's already marked free space on that branch, and search
>> will go into it already, so no pressing need to refine the mark. The
>> space already marked can serve while vacuum makes further progress.
>> Ie: it can wait.
>
> Although... I think I see what you mean.
>
> If you have this:
>
> 255
> .   0
> .   .   0
> .   .   255
> .   0
> .   .   64
> .   .   64
> .   0
> .   .   0
> .   .   64
>
>
> A partial vacuum won't even recurse beyond the root node, so it won't
> expose the free space 2 levels down.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I think this might be able to happen
slightly easily if a tables has fillfactor < 100. For example,
updating tuples on pages that are almost packed except for fillfactor
with the more bigger value

>
> This could be arrived at by having an almost fully packed table that
> contains some free space near the end, and it gets deletions near the
> beginning. Vacuum will mark the leaf levels at the beginning of the
> table, and we'd like for that free space to be discoverable to avoid
> packing more rows near the end where they prevent truncation.
>
> The patch as it is now will only vacuum that part of the FSM when the
> root value drops, which usually requires all the free space on that
> region of the heap to be exhausted.
>
> With the current recursive FSM vacuum method, however, that's
> unavoidable. We can't detect that there's some free space below the
> current level to be exposed without recursing into the tree, and
> recursing is exactly the kind of work we want to prevent with tree
> pruning.
>
> In all my trials, however, I did not run into that case. It must not
> be easy to get into that situation, because the root node already has
> ~4000 slots in it. Each of those 4000 slots should be in that
> situation to keep the space at the end of the table as the sole
> discoverable free space, which seems like a rather contorted worst
> case.

Okay, I guess that this patch cannot help in the case where the
freespace of pages shown on fsm gets decreased by vacuum because the
upper-level node doesn't reflect the value on the lower page. However
it doesn't happen often as you said and it's the same as it is even
though it happens. So I also think it would not become a problem.

I'll review v4 patch.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center